Digital Dossiers Are Here!

Earlier this year, I discussed the need for the promotion and tenure process to transition the the digital dossier. I argued that with all the connectivity to online content that now exists, academia really needs to rethink the dossier paradigm and move from analog to digital. I speculated that this transition WILL happen in the next few years anyway, and suggested that perhaps academic librarians should be the first!

Well, too late. according to an article in in the Chronicle of Higher Education it HAS already happened. Beginning this fall, Kent State University faculty members have the option of submitting their dossiers electronically; digital dossiers will very likely become the only way to go in a year.

A big attraction of digital dossiers, some professors note, is that it's easier to include elements of scholarship and research that couldn't be captured as well in a binder. "You can post video and audio of your teaching. You can take pictures of art and include it," says David W. Dalton, an associate professor of instructional technology at Kent State. "You can hyperlink to things. You can really tell your story in new ways."

Kent State is not alone in this transition. The article reports that Virginia Tech and St. John's University have also gone digital. In a note to Deans and Department Heads in May 2009, Virgina Tech's Senior Vice President and Provost Mark McNamee wrote:

the university committee is asking that dossiers now be submitted in Adobe pdf format rather than as paper. Several colleges are already using electronic dossiers and have found these to be easy to work with while saving many reams of paper. Staff involved in managing the dossier submissions will work together to develop the details in the coming months, including standardization of bookmarks and other changes that take advantage of the electronic format.

The Chronicle article reported that St. John's has saved 225,000 pieces a year when its process went online, in 2008. Yet, their document PAF, Years 1-2 indicates that three paper copies are still required.

The true value of the digital dossier is not in the simply creating an electronic copy of the core dossier. Instead, as Provost McNamee points out it is to take advantage of the electronic format. With a digital dossier:

• The only information that would be sent to an external reviewer would be a single URL. The reviewers could generate paper versions, if they prefer.
  
• Network-based content (e.g. web sites, blogs) would be hyperlinked though the digital dossier. This would allow scholarly communications to be viewed and interacted with in their native formats
• Traditional content would be made accessible through the use of any combination of OpenURL / Link Resolvers / DOI. Most academic institutions have online access to a growing amount of published literature.
  
• Content stored in institutional repositories could also be accessed.
• Content shared on cloud services such as YouTube and SlideShare could also be linked.

Sphere: Related Content

Start Thinking Infostreams, Not Web Pages

Ever since the first time I encountered the Web it has been all about 'pages.' Thinking of the Web in terms other than in pages is quite difficult. Even before the Web I created content using HyperCard, which was based on the concept of a stack of virtual cards.

It's time to begin thinking beyond the page.

The instantaneous and conversational discovery and delivery of newly added content is emerging as the new phase of evolution of the Web. In a post entitled Distribution...Now, John Borthwick discusses how information is increasingly being distributed and presented in real-time streams instead of dedicated Web pages.

Today there seems to be a new distribution model that is emerging. One that is based on people’s ability to publicly syndicate and distribute messages — aka content — in an open manner...what emerges out of this is a new metaphor — think streams vs. pages.

This seems like an abstract difference but I think its very important... In the initial design of the web reading and writing (editing) were given equal consideration- for fifteen years the primary metaphor of the web has been pages and reading. The metaphors we used to circumscribe this possibility set were mostly drawn from books and architecture (pages, browser, sites etc.).

Most of these metaphors were static and one way. The steam metaphor is fundamentally different. It’s dynamic, it doesn’t live very well within a page and still very much evolving.

The people I talk to about information streams they generally state that they don't want more information, they want less. I don't blame them. All these streams (Twitter, Facebook, Friendfeed, etc) are independent of each other. We need to constantly flip from one to another.
So, what I am really hearing from them is they do want access to more information, they just want to be able to winnow and aggregate the streams. Again, from Borthwick:

The streams of data that constitute this now web are open, distributed, often appropriated, sometimes filtered, sometimes curated but often raw...Weeding out context out of this stream of data is vital... I believe search gets redefined in this world, as it collides with navigation... filtering becomes a critical part of this puzzle. Friendfeed is doing fascinating things with filters — allowing you to navigate and search in ways that a year ago could never have been imagined.

This is not to say that streams will replace Web pages or Web search, but it will certainly transform them. As a result, libraries need to begin thinking in terms of streams and not pages when; A) redesigning their Web sites; and B) When rethinking information literacy/education programs.

Sphere: Related Content

The Value of Innovation: New Criteria for Library Scholarship: Part Two

Part two of the two-part article I wrote for Library Journal Academic Newswire entitled The Value of Innovation: New Criteria for Library Scholarship was published today.

In this part, I provide examples of the types of activities that need to carry increased weight within the academic librarianship rewards model. I adapted the criteria from used by the University of Maine New Media Department and activities contained in the criteria of Trinity University Libraries.

It is important to note that broadening the scope of what is valued that I am suggested is not in any way meant to devalue traditional scholarly models.

Instead, criteria used to evaluate the activities of academic librarians needs to be better balanced so that alternative forms of scholarly communication - scholarly activities in general - are supported and rewarded as scholarship, but not at the expense of traditional scholarship. Librarians exploring and implementing new types of services, new forms of scholarship, and alternative instructional techniques need to be properly reward

Once again, the disclaimer: While I retain copyright to the work, Reed Business has a 6-month exclusive license to publish the work in print or online. So, I'm unable to publish it on this blog until February '10. Sphere: Related Content

The Value of Innovation: New Criteria for Library Scholarship

Part one of a two-part article I wrote entitled The Value of Innovation: New Criteria for Library Scholarship appears in today's Library Journal Academic Newswire.

In the article, I discuss how it's time for academic libraries to embrace a new faculty rewards model that properly rewards librarians for exploring and implementing new types of services, new forms of scholarship, and alternative instructional techniques. In part two, I adapt the criteria used by the University of Maine New Media Department to propose updated review criteria for academic librarians.

While I retain copyright to the work, Reed Business has a 6-month exclusive license to publish the work in print or online. So, I'm unable to publish it on this blog until February '10.

At least it's available online - today Sphere: Related Content